Live data from Hacker News

Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

cbc.ca

141–150 of 249 posts

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#141
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canadian here. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your sweeping allegation regarding free expression? As it is, this just seems like some random stab that doesn't concern the topic at hand (which has far more immediate concerns tied to it). Section 1 of the Constitution of Canada (1982) outlines freedom of speech. Just about the only thing you can't do, outside of pursuing damages in the court system for specifi…

Dual citizen here. Canadians and Americans understand free speech to mean different things, and from the US point of view, Canada does not actually have free speech. A standard example is that in Canada, a judge can impose publication bans on information presented in court. These bans can be temporary (don't report on the presented facts until the case is decided) or permanent (the rape victim may not be named). In t…

Thanks for chiming in. This comment was really helpful.

The difference in the Bernardo case is that in Canada persons detained or charged with an offence are innocent until proven guilty. I'd wager that reporting on a case against a judge's orders creates the presumption of guilt, counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is hardcoded into our law here, whereas it is not in the United States where it is inferred.

Frankly that case seems perfectly rational to me, as it protects the innocent who might be smeared and have their lives ruined by such reporting, for the price of denying us the intrigue and scandal of those kinds of cases -- but I was too young to remember the Bernardo case itself.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having bad people say damaging untrue things is a necessary cost we must be willing to bear in order to have a truly free internet. Is it? It's not a necessary thing that we must be willing to bear to have freedom of speech in the United States (if you believe we have freedom of speech in the United States). We have libel and slander laws, and other exceptions. I don't see people shouting those down often. Do you b…

Libel and slander laws can only be applied if you know the identity of the person who did it, and have enough money to hire an attorney to go after the person. Right now if you google my name, there's a forum out there that says I'm a child molester based on zero evidence, and the only reason it's up is because I am following my legal requirements as a website operator per the ToU to not release personally identifyin…

I have a feeling with a bit of research you could start enough of a lawsuit to convince the website to give up the information for less than $100 a few hours of work.

If they were reluctant their host might well be willing to drop them to avoid being dragged into it.

YOU can probably avoid thousands of dollars in costs by doing a bit of legwork they probably aren't as lucky.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#143
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, too, have dual citizenship. This is something that would never happen in the US. https://news.vice.com/article/a-canadian-comedian-was-ordere... Basically, a comedian made a comment in reference to a kid who'd sought donations because he was dying. His quip was: "But five years later, he wasn't dead, he's not dying," he quipped on stage. "The little bastard, he's just not dying." For that, the courts are making hi…

It would happen in the United States if the victim decided to sue for libel, in which case I'd posture they'd pursue even higher damages (but that, I'll wholeheartedly admit, is pure speculation). Still in both cases, the public institution would have the final say in whether or not what was said should not be said. Edit: I was healthily corrected on this point. Not libel, but slander was what I was asserting as a po…

[deleted]

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#144
post #108
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My claim was that Canada as no concept like the 1st amendment... Canada does not offer the same level of protection in their constitution as the US Constitution does Canada's "Free Speech" code is much weaker, to the point that is not a Free Speech Code.. Of course I am a free speech absolutist so...

I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally. There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others. I sh…

So much wrong here where to start....

>>>I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally.

Pretty sure I clearly stated this fact in my comments, further at no point did I say the US could define free speech globally, in fact in this discussion it is Canada not the US attempting the define speech globally.

I was asking if Canada feels it can define Free Speech in the US, and how that would be a violation of our constitution because we have higher protections for free speech than Canada. So clearly I understand Canada is a different nation.

>>>There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others.

This is actually false. If you believe that you completely misunderstand the history and purpose of the the US Constitution, and how that differs from the Charter of Rights in Canada.

The US Constitution is not a complete enumeration of rights, in fact if you read the Federalist Papers you will see a concern that the Bill of rights would lead to some people misunderstanding the purpose of the Bill of Rights, leading them to believe it was complete enumeration of rights when that was never the intention of the Founders. The US Constitution is a document that grants government power, any power not expressly granted to the government in the Constitution is a power forbidden to the federal government and is reserved for the States and the People. In contrast the Canada system of government where the government starts from a position of total power and the Charter of Rights removes some power from the government, this is a critical difference in how our governments are structured. The Charter of Rights in Canada is the total enumeration of rights for Canadian Citizens. This is the opposite approach of the US Constitution.

>>>I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm.

US History it riddled with bad court rulings, some of these are what you are referring to. Yes at some points in history the Supreme Court has been derelict in their support of Free Speech as required by the Constitution. True-threat jurisprudence remains a muddled mess. That however does not invalidate my statements, far from it. In recent years the Supreme Court has been rolling back many of these Terrible Terrible rulings of the past, restoring Free Speech to its proper constitutional level.

On the topic of civil liability, I do not find awarding damages for libel to be a form of censorship, Rights come with responsibility, so you are free to libel or slander or defame, but if you cause that person actual articulable damages then you will be responsible for those damages, that is not censorship. It should be pointed out that generally speaking in order for this happen in the US you have to be making false statements of fact that you knew to be false at the time you made them... Making true factual statements is a absolute defense, a protection not found in some other nations, however I am not sure if Canada has such a defense.

>>>Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet.

I understand the topic of US Constitution very well, I will admit to be less knowledgeable on Canadian law, however I have seen enough news stories, and actual cases to reach the conclusion that the US has better protections for Free Speech than Canada Does.

Your prohibition on "hate Speech" which seems to be expanding to even include calling someone the incorrect pronoun, or the fining of Comedians, and the arresting of Americans for “smuggling hate speech” on their iPad the is pretty much proof positive that Canada has lower free speech protections than the US.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#145
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Section 33 (the notwithstanding clause) makes most of the charter weak at best.

The Charter legalized prostitution, gay marriage, abortions, and assisted suicide. It also banned discrimination against homosexuals, extraditing people to countries where they'll be tortured, and warrantless searches of your house. And it recognized that Aboriginals had title to their land. But yeah, you're right, it's pretty weak. Section 33 has been used once in it's 35 year history, so I see your point.

Well as long as they aren't using it now, everything should be ok, right?

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#146
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, too, have dual citizenship. This is something that would never happen in the US. https://news.vice.com/article/a-canadian-comedian-was-ordere... Basically, a comedian made a comment in reference to a kid who'd sought donations because he was dying. His quip was: "But five years later, he wasn't dead, he's not dying," he quipped on stage. "The little bastard, he's just not dying." For that, the courts are making hi…

It would happen in the United States if the victim decided to sue for libel, in which case I'd posture they'd pursue even higher damages (but that, I'll wholeheartedly admit, is pure speculation). Still in both cases, the public institution would have the final say in whether or not what was said should not be said. Edit: I was healthily corrected on this point. Not libel, but slander was what I was asserting as a po…

> It would happen in the United States if the victim decided to sue for libel

This is simply false, and a bad understanding of United States libel laws. Firstly, these were verbal statements which would make them slander and not libel.

Secondly, these were _not_ false statements of fact (which is the only thing that constitutes libel or slander in the United States). Joking that the child was ugly is an opinion, which is protected by the first amendment. Joking that the child was not dead, and "wouldn't die" also isn't a statement of fact.

It's simply not factually true that the comedian would be exposed to any civil liabilities for those jokes were they made in the United States.

All that said, I agree with the vast majority of the people that those jokes were in extremely poor taste. I would encourage people not to support or listen to a comedian that mocks people in that way.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would happen in the United States if the victim decided to sue for libel, in which case I'd posture they'd pursue even higher damages (but that, I'll wholeheartedly admit, is pure speculation). Still in both cases, the public institution would have the final say in whether or not what was said should not be said. Edit: I was healthily corrected on this point. Not libel, but slander was what I was asserting as a po…

> It would happen in the United States if the victim decided to sue for libel This is simply false, and a bad understanding of United States libel laws. Firstly, these were verbal statements which would make them slander and not libel. Secondly, these were _not_ false statements of fact (which is the only thing that constitutes libel or slander in the United States). Joking that the child was ugly is an opinion, whic…

Thanks for the correction. I certainly don't intend to spread falsehoods. I edited my comment.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#148
post #144
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally. There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others. I sh…

So much wrong here where to start.... >>>I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally. Pretty sure I clearly stated this fact in my comments, further at no point did I say the US could define free speech globally, in fact in this discussion it is Canada not the US attempting the define speech global…

Can you link me sources for your entire last paragraph?

Also there is no 'Charter of Rights' in Canada. If you can't even name the document how can you puport to understand it?

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#149
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dual citizen here. Canadians and Americans understand free speech to mean different things, and from the US point of view, Canada does not actually have free speech. A standard example is that in Canada, a judge can impose publication bans on information presented in court. These bans can be temporary (don't report on the presented facts until the case is decided) or permanent (the rape victim may not be named). In t…

Thanks for chiming in. This comment was really helpful. The difference in the Bernardo case is that in Canada persons detained or charged with an offence are innocent until proven guilty. I'd wager that reporting on a case against a judge's orders creates the presumption of guilt, counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is hardcoded into our law here, whereas it is not in the United States where it…

In the US there is definitely concern that reporting can bias a jury pool such that they no longer presume the innocence of the accused. Freedom of Speech and the presumption of innocence until guilt has been proven are not considered to be mutually incompatible, and the issue is generally resolved during jury selection.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should every court and country have the right to demand that things are de-indexed worldwide, now that Canada has done so? Canadian legal precedent doesn't apply in other countries. This isn't like setting a precedent within your own country.

Sure, but China would then have a good suspicion that they could coerce Google into doing this

China already has just as much leverage against Google as Canada: do what we say or you can't operate in our country.
Post reply on HN